Evaluation of methods for retrieving foraminifera from indurated carbonates: application to the Jurassic spongiolithic limestone lithofacies of the Prebetic Zone (South Spain)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| January 01, 2004 Evaluation of methods for retrieving foraminifera from indurated carbonates: application to the Jurassic spongiolithic limestone lithofacies of the Prebetic Zone (South Spain) Matías Reolid*; Matías Reolid* 1*Departamento de Estratigrafía y Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, Fuentenueva s/n, 18071 Granada (Spain) Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Concha Herrero Concha Herrero 2Departamento de Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid (Spain). email: mreolid@ugr.es, cherrero@geo.ucm.es Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Matías Reolid* 1*Departamento de Estratigrafía y Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, Fuentenueva s/n, 18071 Granada (Spain) Concha Herrero 2Departamento de Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid (Spain). email: mreolid@ugr.es, cherrero@geo.ucm.es Publisher: Micropaleontology Press Received: 03 Jul 2004 Accepted: 14 Jul 2004 First Online: 06 Mar 2017 Online ISSN: 0026-2803 Print ISSN: 1937-2795 © 2004 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Micropaleontology (2004) 50 (3): 307–312. https://doi.org/10.2113/50.3.307 Article history Received: 03 Jul 2004 Accepted: 14 Jul 2004 First Online: 06 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation Matías Reolid*, Concha Herrero; Evaluation of methods for retrieving foraminifera from indurated carbonates: application to the Jurassic spongiolithic limestone lithofacies of the Prebetic Zone (South Spain). Micropaleontology 2004;; 50 (3): 307–312. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/50.3.307 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyMicropaleontology Search Advanced Search Abstract Two methods for retrieving foraminifera from strongly lithified carbonates (Amine-O and cold-disaggregation with acetic acid) were tested on the same sample of Oxfordian spongiolithic limestone (Prebetic Zone, SE Spain) and compared with thin section analysis. Differences between the methods concern: 1) weight of sieved residues after disaggregation; 2) foraminifera/gram ratio; 3) preservation features of the tests; 4) foraminiferal assemblage compositions. The results obtained allow us to conclude that accurate paleoecological and taxonomical analysis of indurated carbonates requires the combined use of thin sections and disaggegration treatment of the samples. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".